SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his\nreport had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in\nrespect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for\ninitiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further\nsubmitted that even in the assessment order passed by the AO,\nthere was no whisper as to which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MAHARASTRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD vs. BEST OASIS LIMITED , MAHARASTRA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,12,90,414/- with its AE and the Ld. TPO in his report had neither recommended for any ALP adjustment in respect of this underlying transaction nor did he recommend for ITA Nos. 633 to 640/Ahd/2024 [DCIT vs. Best Oasis Limited] A.Y. 2012-13 - 6 – initiation of penalty proceeding u/s.271AA of the Act. He further submitted that even

ZYDUS LIFESCIENCES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE (Judicial Member)

section 92C(2) of the Act. 6. That the learned AO / TPO / DRP has erred in law and on facts in rejecting consistent benchmarking approach followed by the Appellant, rejecting functionally comparable companies and arbitrarily cherry-picking companies for the purpose of benchmarking the transaction of sale of goods to Zydus USA. 7. That the learned AO/TPO/DRP has erred